Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 25STCV01939, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV01939    Hearing Date: June 12, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Genesis Motor America erroneously sued as Hyundai Motor America (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

            The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed. Any opposition was required to have been filed by May 30, 2025. (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 1005, subd. (b) [opposition must be filed at least nine court days prior to the hearing].)

BACKGROUND

            This is a lemon-law action. Plaintiff Keith L. Jones (“Plaintiff”) sues Defendant pursuant to a January 24, 2025 complaint (“Complaint”) alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of subdivision (d) of Civil Code section 1793.2; (2) violation of subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1793.2; (3) violation of subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2; (4) breach of express written warranty Civil Code section 1791.2 subdivision (a); section 1794; and (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability Civil Code section 1791.1; section 1794.

 On March 4, 2025, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration (the “Motion”). The Motion is unopposed.         

JUDICIAL NOTICE

Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d), the Court may take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States”.

             Pursuant to Defendant’s request, the Court takes judicial notice of the Complaint filed in this action.

DISCUSSION

            The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), while a federal statute, applies in California courts and requires state courts to enforce arbitration agreements as required by the federal common law developed under the FAA. (Southland Corp. v. Keating (1984) 465 U.S. 1, 15-16.) The FAA preempts and invalidates state law and state judicial decisions that disfavor arbitration or require arbitration provisions to pass higher scrutiny. (Southland Corp., supra (1984) 465 U.S. at 12; Perry v. Thomas (1987) 482 U.S. 483, 490.) If the parties designate the FAA applies, then California arbitration law is preempted. (Rodriguez v. American Techs., Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1121-1122.)

A court’s inquiry is limited to a determination of (1) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and (2) whether the arbitration agreement covers the dispute. (9 U.S.C. § 4; Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostics Systems, Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 1126, 1130; Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (2002) 537 U.S. 79, 84; Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc. (9th Cir. 1999) 175 F.3d 716, 720 [if the finding is affirmative on both counts the FAA requires the Court to enforce the arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms]; Lacayo v. Cataline Restaurant Group Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 244, 257 [Where moving party meets initial burden, “the party opposing arbitration must prove by a preponderance of the evidence any defense to the petition”].) 

Existence and Scope of Arbitration Agreement

“Parties are not required to arbitrate their disagreements unless they have agreed to do so. A contract to arbitrate will not be inferred absent a ‘clear agreement.’ When determining whether a valid contract to arbitrate exists, we apply ordinary state law principles that govern contract formation. In California, a ‘clear agreement’ to arbitrate may be either express or implied in fact.” (Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc. (9th Cir. 2014) 755 F.3d 1089, 1092-93 [applying California law] (internal citations omitted).) In determining the enforceability of an arbitration agreement, the court first considers “two ‘gateway issues’ of arbitrability: (1) whether there was an agreement to arbitrate between the parties, and (2) whether the agreement covered the dispute at issue” (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.) The court is only required to make a finding of the agreement’s existence, not an evidentiary determination of its validity. (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp., supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 219.) 

            In support of the Motion, Defendant presents two different arbitration clauses – one contained within the Owner’s Handbook & Warranty Information for Plaintiff’s vehicle and the other contained within the Connected Services Agreement Terms and Conditions. (Ameripour Decl., Ex. 3; Rao Decl., Ex. 2.) In relevant portion, the arbitration clause states:  

“If you purchased or leased your Genesis vehicle in the State of California, you and we, Genesis Motor America, each agree that any claim or disputes between us (including between you and any of our affiliated companies) related to or arising out of your vehicle purchase, advertising for the vehicle, use of your vehicle, the performance of the vehicle, any service relating to the vehicle, the vehicle warranty, representations in the warranty, or the duties contemplated under the warranty, including without limitation claims related to false or misleading advertising, unfair competition, breach of contract or warranty, the failure to conform a vehicle to warranty, failure to repurchase or replace your vehicle, or claims for a refund or partial refund of your vehicle's purchase price (excluding personal injury claims), but excluding claims brought under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, shall be resolved by binding arbitration at either your or our election, even if the claim is initially filed in a court of law.” (Ameripour Decl., Ex. 3, p. 12.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint arises from the performance of the vehicle, services related to the vehicle and the vehicle warranty, including the representations and obligations contained therein. (Compl., ¶¶ 5-40.) Thus, the Court finds that there is an agreement to arbitrate between the parties and that the agreement covers the dispute at issue. Plaintiff has not opposed this Motion and thus there is no argument challenging the validity or enforceability of the arbitration provision.  

The Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. This action is STAYED pending completion of arbitration. A Status Conference re arbitration is set for March 12, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Status Conference Report re Arbitration at least seven court days before the Status Conference.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.           

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 12th day of June 2025